Call of Duty: World at War: Final Fronts Review – Is this a worthy use of the Call of Duty title?

Prepare Call of Duty: World At War: Final Fronts

I didn’t know what to think when the Call of Duty franchise went back to World War II after the phenomenal Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. I was understandably wary, but Treyarch managed to make World War II somewhat fun again. Call of Duty: World at War: Final Fronts, as you can tell from the title, is not just a PlayStation 2 port of World at War, but rather a companion piece.

Can UK-based developer Rebellion do what Treyarch did and breathe some life back into World War II?

Gameplay in Call of Duty: World At War: Final Fronts (1 out of 5)

Gameplay is, I think, the most crucial aspect of a game. I mean "game" is right there in "gameplay." Sadly it’s where Call of Duty: World at War: Final Fronts disappoints the most.

Call of Duty: World at War made the tired World War II setting work through innovation. The sniper level in which you hide amongst dead bodies and time your shots with passing planes? Sure, it may have been a mix of Enemy at the Gates and the sniper level from Call of Duty 4, but it was still great, as was the ensuing chase after you’re discovered. Call of Duty: World At War: Final Fronts contains none of that innovation and excitement, delivering an experience that "by-the-book" is too nice of a term for.

In fact, the only thing separating it from past PlayStation 2 Call of Duty titles is the addition of the flamethrower, but even that is somewhat ruined. World at War at least made you wait a few missions before letting you burn guys to a crisp and the anticipation was sweet. Here, however, all of that magic is killed after you get the flamethrower in the very first mission. I understand that it’s a flamethrower and that’s awesome, but these things have to be handled with care, you know?

Graphics in Call of Duty: World At War: Final Fronts (2 out of 5)

Unlike the gameplay, which I could (and did) compare to Call of Duty: World at War, I can’t do the same with graphics, considering that Call of Duty: World at War: Final Fronts is on the PlayStation 2. With that in mind, the game still looks awful. The characters are blotchy and low-res, as are half of the surroundings, and the framerate slows way down when a moderate amount of action is taking place. Add to that the sheer number of little visual glitches, such as enemies just disappearing when killed, and you’ve got graphics that are borderline embarrassing. So, as far as the graphics go in Call of Duty: World At War: Final Fronts, I wouldn’t really give it any type of kudos for the job that was done here.

Overall Feelings on Call of Duty: World At War: Final Fronts (1 out of 5)

Call of Duty: World at War: Final Fronts is a game that by all means shouldn’t even exist. It looks awful and plays awful, and I would say that the lack of multiplayer and unlockables only warrants a single playthrough, but the truth is that you shouldn’t even play through this game once. I’ve played worse games, but that’s not an excuse. This is a poor use of the Call of Duty name.

Other Call of Duty: World At War Articles

Now, just because Call of Duty: World At War: Final Fronts wasn’t what it was cracked up to be, doesn’t mean that other Call of Duty franchises are. Here are some great articles on Call of Duty: World At War: